Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2021
  6. /
  7. January

Imran Malik vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|21 May, 2021
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 6
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20232 of 2021 Applicant :- Imran Malik Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State through video conferencing mode.
A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No.1116 of 2019 at Police Station-Badaut, District-Baghpat on 18.11.2019 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 504, 506 IPC.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judgd/Fast Track Court, No.1, Mathura on 02.03.2021.
The applicant is in jail since 10.02.2021, pursuant to the said F.I.R.
Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the complainant and the applicant are old acqaintances. They jointly registered a firm where the Aadhar Card of the complainant was submitted for the purposes of identification. The ownership of the aforesaid firm is already under investigation by the Sales Tax Authority. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case to leverage the criminal prosecution in the business dispute. The applicant does not have any criminal history. Lastly it is submitted by Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond, and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.
Learned A.G.A could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.
I see merit in the submissions of Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant-Imran Malik be released on bail in Case Crime No.1116 of 2019 at Police Station-Badaut, District-Baghpat registered on 18.11.2019 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 504, 506 IPC., on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below.
The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either through his counsel or personally as and when directed by the learned trial court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial, the trial in order to secure his presence may issue a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. In case the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
(v) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
(vi) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 21.5.2021 Ashish Tripathi Digitally signed by Justice Ajay Bhanot Date: 2021.05.23 17:44:14 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Imran Malik vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
21 May, 2021
Judges
  • Ajay Bhanot
Advocates
  • Akhilesh Kumar Mishra